Criticism of the Divān of Rafiuddin Lonbani Esfahani Correction, and Re-correction of some of its Verses

The importance of the technique of text correction, which is the main basis of other research, is clear to everyone. From the past until now, many proofreaders have spent their time and knowledge in this field and tried to provide revised and trustable texts. However, due to its special nature, which is the result of the author's absence, this field always provides the opportunity for new observations. Therefore, sometimes a text is recorrected and represented differently after the first time. The reason for this is usually finding a valid version or versions or trying to fix the bugs and shortcomings of the previous correction. One of these texts is Diwan of Rafiuddin Lonbani.Rafiuddin Abdulaziz Lonbani is one of the poets of the late 6th and early 7th century, from Lanban. There is limited information about Rafi al-Din's biography and life events, like many others before the Mongols. From Divan Rafi, more than 1500 verses have been left in the form of odes, sonnets, quatrain, stanzas and Ghat’e. His poetry is important in terms of various linguistic and literary benefits, reflecting some social customs. Divan Rafi has been published twice so far, But there are still errors in the text and weaknesses in the correction method, lack of needed details and lists.

Taghi Binesh (1990) was the first in correcting and presenting Rafi’s Divān, shortly followed by Mohammad Hoveida (1994), a couple of years later. Since then, despite the mistakes and shortcomings that are evident in both editions, no criticism has been made about these two corrections. This article, by criticizing the previous two corrections, shows the necessity of recorrecting this text. For this purpose, six manuscripts have been used in the following order:From collection number 103 of the Chesterbiti library, in manuscript, written on Saturday 23 Dhu al-Hijjah 699. From a collection in the Hakimoglu library with number 669. Without the name of the author and the date of writing, in the manuscript. From a collection numbered 3/16-I belonging to the library of the Islamic Council, in Nastaliq script, written by Qutbuddin Kermani, dated 1017. The copy of the library of the Islamic Council, number 986. In Nastaliq's handwriting, without the name of the author and the date of writing. From a collection numbered 2846 belonging to the British Museum. The book of Mohammad Taleghani, in Nastaliq script. From collection No. 135-3 belonging to the library of the Islamic Council. Without the name of the scribe, in Nastaliq script, written in 1241-1242.

Disccusion:

manuscripts Binesh has done his work based on the Chesterbiti version (the oldest version dated 699) and against the two versions of the British Museum and Turkey (around the 11th century). Hoveida used six manuscripts which he did not introduce well; Therefore, the value and validity of the copies are not clear. correction method Among the types of correction methods, for a text whose version is superior to other versions in terms of age and accuracy, the best method is critical correction by determining the primary version; As Binesh has chosen it. Hoveyda did not explain his correction method. In addition to this, his correction has two major problems:- Changing the correct recordings of the previous correction to incorrect recordings  Failure to observe modern calligraphy and incorrect spelling variants report The narrative of the replacements in the edition of Binish is based on trustworthiness and correct ijtihads. Hoveida has reported only the replacements. Two major forms can also be seen in his work:Single numbers are not being placed in their correct place Confusion in the use of version abbreviations Shortcomings of both editions weakness in writing the introduction, lack of needed details and lists missed poems failure to identify whether the poems attribution is correct intermingling poetic forms unidentified qasidahs’ praised subject Re-correction of some verses which are wrong in both corrections. For example:Cheninsefat (lonbani, 1990: 144; lonbani, 1994: 61) correct form: janinsefat The correctness of the recording of janinsefat is well evident in terms of observing the semantic and lexical proportions, and the mistake made in the previous two corrections is only the result of the haste and carelessness of the correctors and not paying attention to the meaning.

Taghi Binesh (1990) was the first in correcting and presenting Rafi’s Divān, shortly followed by Mohammad Hoveida (1994), a couple of years later. The review and evaluation of these two corrections showed that despite the presence of some new material in the preface of the Hoveida's edition and the correction of some incorrect recordings of the previous correction, the correction of Binesh due to the use of authentic versions, the methodical nature of the correction, and the presence of the corrector with various ijtihads and some useful explanations, it is superior to Hoveida's correction. However, Binish did not present Divan Rafi as it should. The : weakness of both editions in writing the introduction, lack of needed details and lists, missed poems ,not identifying the correctness of the attribution of the poems that appear in the Diwan of other poets, intermingling poetic forms and unidentified qasidahs’ praised subject in addition to the Diwan of Lonbani, as well as the many mistakes that still exist in the text, show the necessity of another correction of the Diwan of this lesser-known poet of the 7th century.